Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Penn Treaty Network America Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 20, 2015Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Todd

I join the Majority in rejecting the Commonwealth Court’s interpretation of 40 *324P.S. § 221.18(a) (“Section 518(a)”) which required that, in order to convert the rehabilitation process of an insolvent insurer into a liquidation of that company, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner (“Commissioner”) must “prove, as a matter of fact, that [the] insolvent insurer’s immediate financial circumstances are in such disarray that they are completely unsal-vageable,” or that the Commissioner must “adopt a rehabilitation plan, and, then, have its implementation fail.” Consedine v. Penn Treaty Network,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blumenschein v. Pittsburgh Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Foster v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Bowman v. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOUR.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Consedine v. Penn Treaty Network America InsuranceCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  5. Federal Kemper Insurance v. Insurance Department of the CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API